I am currently rewriting What Happens NEXT? I am reordering the prophecies in Chapter One to group them better. I also need to address a serious issue that surrounds the "7,000 Year Plan of God," which is also known as the "Six-Day Theory." There is a difference in the genealogies (Genesis 5 and 11) between the Septuagint (LXX), the Masoretic Text (MT), and the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) from the 3rd century BC. The Septuagint often has longer numbers for the ages of the patriarchs at the birth of their first sons, leading to a longer timeline from creation to Abraham. This would push the date of creation back further, closer to 5500 BC. It would mean the age of the earth is 7500 years and not 6000. The Samaritan Pentateuch pushes it back even further.
The 6000 year timeline is central to the Six Day Theory - or the "7,000 Year Plan of God" that we see in the Seven Days of Creation, and a teaching that I have long espoused. I have meant to address this for some time, but explaining my position on this is not easy, and I have been putting it off. Because I just finished the 2025 Edition of Gehenna Revisited to include updated information on the Shroud of Turin, Bible Codes, and the statistical significance of both the Bible Codes and Bible Prophecy, I decided now was a good time to address this issue as well.
The MT is the authoritative Hebrew text used for most modern translations of the Old Testament. It generally gives lower numbers for these ages, which results in a younger Earth, typically around 4000 BC according to traditional calculations like those by Archbishop Ussher. Some believe the numbers were changed after the ministry of Jesus to hide the fact that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies related to the timing of the Messiah's coming.
Young Earth Creationist Interpretations:
Many young Earth creationists base their calculations of 6,000 years on the MT, which aligns with a roughly 6,000-year-old Earth from the present day. This is often tied to the "7,000 Year Plan of God" where the world's history is seen as a week-long period (1,000 years for each day), with the 7th "day" being a millennium of peace post-second coming of Christ.
Discrepancy with LXX:
The 7,000 year theory falls apart if the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies of the Septuagint are correct. The longer time spans move the creation event back in time by hundreds of years. Instead of 6,000 years, we are looking at around 7,500. However, the fact that the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 1:18 is the same in both the MT and the LXX, I think the genealogies in the LXX might be explained by different reasons that are grounded in historical precedents. I do think God is capable of giving us the Scriptures and timelines that He wants us to have. For that reason, I give greater weight to the MT than I do the LXX. I know that many who think the LXX's genealogies are correct, especially since Luke includes the addition of Cainan, and that comes from the LXX. I think Cainan is omitted for some reason from the MT, even though Cainan does appear to genuinely be in the genealogy of Jesus. Cainan comes from the Septuagint's Genesis 11:12-13 passage, and that appears to be the text Luke was working with. Perhaps it is like Joseph not being included in the 12 tribes of Israel, even though he was a son of Jacob - AKA Israel. I see a precedent in Joseph that might hint at the differing genealogies.
In the Masoretic Text, Genesis 11:12-13 reads like this:
And Šëm lived after he begat ´Arpa¢šað five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And ´Arpa¢šad lived five and thirty years, and begat Šelaç.
In the Septuagint, Genesis 11:12-13 reads like this:
And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan. And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala; and Canaan lived after he had begotten Sala, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.
Cainan is missing from the lineage of Jesus in the Masoretic text and also missing from the KJV Genesis account:
And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah: Genesis 11:12.
However, in Luke's genealogy in chapter 3 the KJV has Cainan in the genealogy:
Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, Luke 3:35-36.
The main thing this affects is the 7,000 Year Plan of God, which is 6,000 years of labor, followed by 1,000 years of rest in the Millennium. It is based on the six days of creation followed by a Sabbath rest. It is also based on 2 Peter 3:8: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." The different genealogies in the LXX push creation back to 7,500 years ago, which according to the theory, would put us on the other side of the Millennium. The dates of the Samaritan Pentateuch push it back even farther. The disciples and Jesus mostly quoted the Septuagint, and Josephus seems to support it as well. These differences need to be addressed, especially since I teach the 7,000 year theory and have for years. I first learned it almost 25 years ago, but I can no longer comfortably teach it without acknowledging the problem. Even though I do accept the MT as authoritative. I think the dates recorded in the MT are there for a reason, and that reason is to point us to something. I believe the creation week might actually be a prophetic shadow. Why did God take 7 days to create everything when He could have done it a single second? Was the purpose to teach us He had a plan? Namely, the 7,000 Year Plan of God?
When examining the LXX, some scholars do not integrate the extended genealogical timelines into their calculations for the age of the Earth. They prefer to revert to the MT's chronology when it comes to the pivotal calculation of the Earth's age - either for theological reasons or because they prioritize the MT for doctrinal purposes.
Why Not 7,500 Years?
If the Septuagint's chronologies were consistently applied, the Earth would be considered older, closer to 7,500 years from now. However, many young Earth creationists use the LXX for other theological discussions but fall back on the MT for dating the creation. I find their methods puzzling, but I accept the MT as authoritative.
Because the Septuagint manuscripts were a translation of the Hebrew texts, and because the Septuagint predates the Masoretic Text (and most of the Dead Sea scrolls), some believe that the longer dates of the Septuagint might actually be correct. The LXX’s earlier creation date, and its basis in Hebrew manuscripts, does seem to favor its older chronology, making the Genesis 5 and 11 numbers superior to the Masoretic Text. Another issue in its favor is that the longer dates were supported by Josephus, Philo, and some Samaritan Pentateuch readings. These things suggest an ancient Hebrew tradition with the extended timelines derived from the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11.
However, the Masoretic Text's consistency, its alignment with some Dead Sea Scroll fragments, and its use in early Jewish works, like the Seder Olam, indicate it also reflects an early tradition. Perhaps the differences stem from different Hebrew texts, with possible scribal errors or intentional edits. Nevertheless, without original manuscripts, it’s impossible to definitively prove that the creation date derived from the Septuagint's genealogies is the correct one. But the arguments for its priority due to age and translation is considered to be a well-grounded argument, and it is backed up by the views of some scholars who favor the Septuagint (e.g., Henry Smith’s work).
The big issue for me is that I was taught the 6,000-year timeline for mankind's history, which is based on the six days of creation. So this has significant theological implications for that eschatology.
Eschatological Implications:
The 6,000-Year Plan has been central to my eschatology for quite some time, but it falls apart if the longer timelines presented in the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch genealogies are accurate. The view that sees the 6,000-year timeline as linked to the six days of creation becomes a problem, and I need to address the issue in What Happens Next. It is the main reason I am removing it from publication temporarily while I adjust the book to take this into consideration.
However, with that said, I don't believe anything takes God by surprise, and I believe the Old Testament we have received is the Old Testament God intended us to have. In other words, I think the 6,000 years from Adam until now, as seen in the MT, is a valid framework. The six days of creation, and the 7th day of rest that we see in the Bible, does point to something deeper - just as the "7,000 Year Plan of God" asserts. I still hold to the same eschatological position I always have; however, I do acknowledge that others find these different genealogies, and the dating issues they pose, troubling.
No comments:
Post a Comment